## Facts

- C.S.B. Commodities, Inc. (CSB), an Illinois corporation, owned a registered trademark for “MYTEA” used on tea-related kitchen products.
- CSB alleged Urban Trend (HK) Ltd., a Hong Kong corporation, and Robert Kushner marketed and distributed infringing “MYTEA” products in the United States.
- Kushner traveled voluntarily to Illinois for business connected to marketing and selling the accused products.
- While Kushner was in Illinois, CSB served him with process in Illinois both (a) individually and (b) purportedly as a representative of Urban Trend.
- CSB asserted federal trademark infringement claims and related claims against both defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Kushner also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim as to his individual liability.

## Issues

1. Whether personal service on Kushner while voluntarily present in Illinois established personal jurisdiction over him (tag/transient jurisdiction).
2. Whether service on Kushner in Illinois as Urban Trend’s purported representative established personal jurisdiction over the foreign corporation, or whether Urban Trend needed its own minimum contacts with Illinois.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged Kushner’s personal participation in trademark infringement sufficient to state an individual claim.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Kushner, holding that in-forum personal service while voluntarily present supported jurisdiction.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Urban Trend to the extent CSB failed to show Urban Trend had constitutionally sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois.
- The court denied Kushner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding that the complaint adequately alleged his personal involvement in the alleged infringement.

## Legal Principles

- An individual voluntarily present in the forum who is personally served there is subject to personal jurisdiction under the tag (transient) jurisdiction doctrine, consistent with due process.
- A foreign corporation is not subject to personal jurisdiction merely because an alleged agent was served while present in the forum; the corporation must have its own minimum contacts with the forum such that jurisdiction is fair and reasonable.
- A corporate officer or agent may be personally liable for trademark infringement if the pleadings plausibly allege personal participation in the infringing conduct (i.e., being a moving, active force behind the infringement), not merely corporate status.

## Conclusion

The court sustained jurisdiction over an individual defendant based on in-state personal service during a voluntary business visit, required an independent minimum-contacts showing to hale a foreign corporate defendant into Illinois, and permitted trademark infringement claims against the individual to proceed based on allegations of his direct participation in the challenged sales and marketing.


C.S.B. Commodities, Inc. v. Urban Trend (HK) Ltd., 626 F. Supp. 2d 837 (N.D. Ill. 2009)